Now to be fair, I'm fairly certain my idea is not unique, however I feel that it is a fairly good solution for limiting access to firearms while still allowing access to the general public.

Before I get started, I want to point out that I am not implying that I solved the issue of gun violence. That is a separate debate. Furthermore, my use of the word "solved" in the title was just to get people to read my ideas and debate the merits of them, so don't be a nit-picker.

The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".

At these armories, members of the public could register for a club. For the sake of argument, let's call these clubs "militias".

Members of these militias would be required to undergo background checks and regular therapy as a condition of membership. Another condition of membership is regular and mandatory training.

All firearms will be stored at the armories at all times. If a member wants to use a firearm off premesis, they would be allowed to check out certain weapons. Possible reasons for checking out a firearm include: registered organized shooting events, or hunting. (I'm not really sure what guns are useful for outside of shooting things or killing things. Cross-country skiing practice?) Well-trained members of this militia may even be allowed to check out firearms to assist the police in protecting the community in the very unlikely event they are nearby a situation which requires their training. Ammunition would also have to be checked out, and all spent shell casings and unused ammunition must be returned to prevent diversion of ammunition. This has the added benefit of recycling spent casings. Otherwise, all members would be allowed to use all other firearms on premesis.

As for implementing this plan, existing guns could be grandfathered in, with laws allowing voluntary donation of firearms to licensed armories. These laws could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out.

I feel like after a few decades there would be a significant reduction in the availability of firearms, correlating with a decline in gun violence. As stated before, this plan doesn't solve the problem of gun violence, but it does effectively curb the availability of guns which in turn lowers the instances of gun related crimes.

Well, gosh, we could solve all our apparently intractable political debates this way!

Let's move on to abortion:

"Pro-life" version: Women who are pregnant should just carry their babies to term and then give birth to them."Pro-choice" version: We should just all agree that it's totally the woman's choice whether or not she gets an abortion.

See? Easy!

__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Well, gosh, we could solve all our apparently intractable political debates this way!

Let's move on to abortion:

"Pro-life" version: Women who are pregnant should just carry their babies to term and then give birth to them."Pro-choice" version: We should just all agree that it's totally the woman's choice whether or not she gets an abortion.

See? Easy!

Wow, you seem like an accomplished master-debator.

Unfortunately this thread is about gun control. If you would like to talk about abortion you can certainly start a separate thread.

"Regular therapy", really? I'm a bit surprised you didn't add in there that gun owners will be required to wear a scarlet letter. This whole thing is a dumb idea that would be opposed by the NRA, Republicans, and many gun owners. It is not politically viable in today's political climate. It holds absolutely no appeal for me as a gun owner, and if it ever got any serious momentum, I'd oppose it vociferously.

"Regular therapy", really? I'm a bit surprised you didn't add in there that gun owners will be required to wear a scarlet letter. This whole thing is a dumb idea that would be opposed by the NRA, Republicans, and many gun owners. It is not politically viable in today's political climate. It holds absolutely no appeal for me as a gun owner, and if it ever got any serious momentum, I'd oppose it vociferously.

What seems bad about regular therapy to you? Therapy is not indicative of a mental health problem, but it can help identify them sooner. And according to republicans, many people who commit gun violence are mentally unstable. This is a solution to reduce the amount of mentally unstable people with access to firearms. Unless of course, republicans don't actually want a solution to the problem they invented.

Of course the idea would be opposed by the NRA and republicans. They oppose all solutions that aren't sell more guns.

What is the basis of your opposition? Is it because the plan would be ineffective, or because it doesn't fit your ideology? If it's the former, than why? Also, if you have any better ideas, now would be the time to post them.

I suppose there are arguments to be made for mandatory military service, or even military service as a requirement to get certain rights, so I'd start with those and if it reduces gun violence as a result, I'd consider that a happy side-effect.

__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

This is an awesome idea. The political climate in America is definitely ripe for such a solution to be implemented, and it will no doubt be trivially easy to accomplish. I mean, the political will is there, on both sides of the aisle, for sure. And Americans don't generally feel that firearms are useful for self-defense; everyone knows that a true gentleman carries a rapier, and for citizens of common stock, machetes and axes will suffice. There certainly aren't enough gun advocates to raise much of a public hue and cry about this proposal; and those that exist, are far too strapped for cash to make their voice heard.

In summation, I think this is an excellent idea. I think, in fact, that the Democratic Party should adopt this as an official platform, and campaign hard on it for the next few years. The voting public will definitely see the light, and it's a sure thing that Donald Trump will be voted out of office and replaced by a Democratic president.

Members of these militias would be required to undergo background checks and regular therapy as a condition of membership.

Do you have figures on how good mental health therapists are at predicting who will be violent, and how effective therapy is in reducing violent incidents? Especially for people who don't show any symptoms of mental illness.

Quote:

All firearms will be stored at the armories at all times. If a member wants to use a firearm off premesis, they would be allowed to check out certain weapons. Possible reasons for checking out a firearm include: registered organized shooting events, or hunting.

Could I check out my weapon if I wanted it to defend myself or my home?

The Second Amendment guarantees two things - the right to keep, and the right to bear arms. If I am required to turn my rifle in to an armory for them to keep, that appears to violate the "keep" part, and if I have to get permission to check my weapon out, that would appear to violate the "bear" part.

Keep also in mind that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people, not the states nor the federal government, to keep and bear arms. It also says that a militia is necessary to a free state. There are already two kinds of militias in the US - the organized militia, like the National Guard, and the unorganized militia, which is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 (cite). So that part is taken care of.

Gun violence has been decreasing in the US for several years, so you will also need to show the necessity for this kind of regulation. Whatever we are doing now, seems to be working, despite some recent incidents. So that also is a burden needing to be overcome when you go to prove that what you suggest is effective, and necessary.

Go ahead and prove it. I don't want to be that guy who says we can't debate gun control.

So,

a cite showing that mental health therapists can accurately predict who will be violent in the general population

a cite showing that therapy reduces violence when required for the general public, and

an explanation on how requiring me to store my guns under government control does not violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

So this seems like a 'solution' where the gun control and anti-gun folks get everything they want while the pro-gun side gives up basically everything they have currently and for no apparent gain. I realize that to liberals who are anti-gun this seems a fair trade, but I seriously doubt many on the pro-gun side are going to be too keen.

Quote:

The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".

Quote:

At these armories, members of the public could register for a club. For the sake of argument, let's call these clubs "militias".

I'm assuming you are using all this contrived language because you plan to re-reinterpret the 2nd as a collective right and this will make it fit.

You left out the part where " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...you seem to be advocating in your solution a pretty heavy infringement.

Quote:

Members of these militias would be required to undergo background checks and regular therapy as a condition of membership. Another condition of membership is regular and mandatory training.

So, for the privilege of having their weapons taken from them and put in 'armories' that they can only access when they are there or under very limited circumstances they have to also qualify to be in the club and they have to jump through these hoops as well to qualify. Who is paying for this btw? Have each member to pony up for background checks and 'regular therapy' as well as training? All that costs money. Of course, since the idea is to make things as difficult as possible for...um, I guess we can't even call them gun owners anymore, so...members? Since the idea seems to be to put up barriers and make things as difficult as possible there probably won't be that many people who are willing to jump through all these hoops and pay for the privilege, so it's most likely a win-win for you and your side.

Quote:

As for implementing this plan, existing guns could be grandfathered in, with laws allowing voluntary donation of firearms to licensed armories. These laws could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out.

Existing guns (all 360+ million of them) will still be out on the streets? I seriously doubt more than 10% would be donated, unless that's a subtle way of saying you plan to do similar things to your clubs to encourage people to 'donate'. I see you've put the hooks in with 'could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out', so I'll assume that's part of the plan.

Quote:

I feel like after a few decades there would be a significant reduction in the availability of firearms, correlating with a decline in gun violence. As stated before, this plan doesn't solve the problem of gun violence, but it does effectively curb the availability of guns which in turn lowers the instances of gun related crimes.

I'm not seeing it unless you are going to get very draconian on your grandfathered in guns...which, based on the rest of your OP I'd guess is part of the plan anyway. I know you put a lot of thought into this, but sadly I don't think you know much about the subject or your opposition side or even the politics involved in even attempting what you are proposing. Simply put, it won't work unless you become God King of America and can just push through the legislature by fiat and your gods-given authority.

I also have my doubts that, even if you managed to put it in place it would really have that big an effect on lowering gun violence in the US. You might drop the number of gun murders a few thousand a year (say, from ~11K to ~7-8K) but my WAG is we'd simply go from ~5K non-gun related murders to ~7-8K. I don't think it would have much effect on suicides, which are the majority of deaths caused by guns in the US.

Unfortunately, such an idea would never pass, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about well-regulated militias, just that gun control of any form is absolutely prohibited.

Naw, you got that wrong...the Constitution ONLY talks about a well-regulated militia and never mentions whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's why the OPs plan will work so well...there is nothing in there protecting the right of the people, only militias!

I said the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. You say that it's the opposite, that the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. I think you might not have gotten my point.

Dude, you joined the board to post this crap? This is a left-leaning (by US measures) board where your (and my) lefty politics will find plenty of friendly support, but your solution is laughably one-sided and decidedly unclever.

I said the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. You say that it's the opposite, that the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. I think you might not have gotten my point.

I figured you were being facetious. Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about regulation or gun control, and we have certainly regulated other protected rights such as free speech...you just can't completely abolish access without vacating the amendment first (or doing what the anti-gun types tried in the past, which is re-interpret it so that they can circumvent it and take the right away by legislative sleight of hand). The OPs plan wouldn't work because it's a major infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so my guess is the OP plans to have his new USSC re-re-interpret the 2nd to be a collective right so that he can get around that stuffy technicality and make it all about the militias.

If all existing guns are "grandfathered in" then we're still going to have a massive, MASSIVE amount of guns out there. There are more guns in america, then there are Americans.

And, c'mon, "regular therapy?' Many, many mentally ill people, especially on medication, KNOW what "normal" looks like, because they observe it every day, even if they aren't, and can fake it to some therapist. I have little doubt Paddock would have passed this test.

This does nothing, practically nothing, to stop some guy from doing a checkout and shooting up a school.

There is only ONE solution. Repeal the 2nd amendment and do a massive gun grab. That will be a bloody, bloody day that will make school shootings look like child's play.

Dude, you joined the board to post this crap? This is a left-leaning (by US measures) board where your (and my) lefty politics will find plenty of friendly support, but your solution is laughably one-sided and decidedly unclever.

You're being presumptuous. I don't even own a gun. I have no stake in this whatsoever. But I know plenty of people that aren't giving up their guns unless you pry them from their cold, dead hands. SWAT style raids against the uncooperative is going to be a bloody, bloody day. Don't fool yourself.

The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".
...
All firearms will be stored at the armories at all times.

Many (though not all) of the pro-gunners are motivated by fear of governmental tyranny. The idea of giving control of all the nation's guns to one powerful entity is naturally going to alarm them, and perhaps some of the rest of us.

Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk. A repeal of the 2nd amendment - along with the attendant laws about seizure and such - would bring law enforcement and potentially the National Guard into the process. Posse commitatus prevents the full time military from getting involved.

But once professional military units get involved gun owners would lose. It's hard for your hobbyists to stand up against police, much less professionals with top of the line equipment.

I've heard this argument before, that there's no means by which people could be disarmed at this point. That's true under current circumstances. But under a repeal situation it would just be a matter of being willing to pay the price.

The reason such standoffs seemingly function - Waco, the Bundy stuff and so forth - is that the government, in the persons of law enforcement and the military - has decided the goal isn't worth the price. The minute that calculus changes the guns will be taken and a lot of people will die quickly. After that collecting the remaining guns - from those who like them but aren't willing to die for them (doubtless later referred to as summer soldiers and sunshine patriots) - will be a simple matter of administrative headaches.

If they stopped 'all' gun manufacturing today, it would be several decades before there would any kind of shortage. I am married to a Redneck, southern guy. You won't pry his gun out of his hand. He will not give them up freely. My son; same. Everybody I know; same. It ain't happening. And if it starts getting pushed upon them, I promise they will start hoarding.
My people are all ex-military, they know guns and how to use and store them.
Your idea won't fly around here.
They are not the ones going around shooting up soft targets,though.
All solutions must target the 'problem' gun owner. I don't know how they will determine this, but that can be the only solution.

Which Constitution? ... from the State Constitution of Indiana (for example):

Quote:

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

If Them the People of Indiana wanted Federal gun control, you'd think they would amend their own constitution first ... quite a few states have this kind of language in their state constitutions so the first battles to be fought will have to be in the State Houses across the land ... whatever the magnitude of difficulty of getting 2/3's of each house of the US Congress to agree, now try getting 38 States to ratify ...

Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk. A repeal of the 2nd amendment - along with the attendant laws about seizure and such - would bring law enforcement and potentially the National Guard into the process. Posse commitatus prevents the full time military from getting involved.

But once professional military units get involved gun owners would lose. It's hard for your hobbyists to stand up against police, much less professionals with top of the line equipment.

I've heard this argument before, that there's no means by which people could be disarmed at this point. That's true under current circumstances. But under a repeal situation it would just be a matter of being willing to pay the price.

The reason such standoffs seemingly function - Waco, the Bundy stuff and so forth - is that the government, in the persons of law enforcement and the military - has decided the goal isn't worth the price. The minute that calculus changes the guns will be taken and a lot of people will die quickly. After that collecting the remaining guns - from those who like them but aren't willing to die for them (doubtless later referred to as summer soldiers and sunshine patriots) - will be a simple matter of administrative headaches.

As unlikely as the image of the heroic gun owner fighting off the federal government Red Dawn style. The thing is, a lot of people who are in the police force and national guard are also gun owners...same with every branch of the military. And even if the police and military obeyed in lockstep, even a few incidents of Americans being killed defending their guns would be a huge PR cluster fuck of epic proportions. Hell, Waco was a bunch of religious nuts who WANTED the government to come in to fight and kill them in some sort of apocalypse trigger event a la ISIL, and that was still a PR nightmare. Something like average Joe American and his wife and 2.5 kids being killed or injured to take their guns away is not going to play well on the news.

More likely what you'd have is a lot of people just hiding their weapons. We don't have enough police or military to do complete searches of everyone who MIGHT own guns home.

I agree that, eventually, over time it will reduce the number of guns in the US substantially if you vacated the 2nd and put in more draconian gun controls or bans...but I think there will still be 10's if not 100's of millions of guns out there, and the pain of doing it this way would be pretty bad, even if it didn't spark a civil war...and it will make those who already see liberals under their bed ready to grab their guns even more fervent in their desire to hold onto them.

Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk ... [snip] ... But once professional military units get involved gun owners would lose. It's hard for your hobbyists to stand up against police, much less professionals with top of the line equipment ... [snap]

That's insane ... FBI, Marshall's office and the National Guard fighting it out with State Police and local sheriff's offices ... then what, Federal authorities will have to occupy the county because the people can't be trusted to elect compliant officials ... take away the guns, the pressure cookers, the charcoal briquets, kitchen knives, nails ... all the time under sniper fire ...

Blood bath ... how many millions of cold dead fingers will the Feds have to pry open? ... how many Nation Guardsmen will refuse to gun down American civilians? ... "What if you knew her and saw her dead on the ground" ...

As unlikely as the image of the heroic gun owner fighting off the federal government Red Dawn style. The thing is, a lot of people who are in the police force and national guard are also gun owners...same with every branch of the military. And even if the police and military obeyed in lockstep, even a few incidents of Americans being killed defending their guns would be a huge PR cluster fuck of epic proportions. Hell, Waco was a bunch of religious nuts who WANTED the government to come in to fight and kill them in some sort of apocalypse trigger event a la ISIL, and that was still a PR nightmare. Something like average Joe American and his wife and 2.5 kids being killed or injured to take their guns away is not going to play well on the news.

Well, I've heard this response, too. But doesn't that imply there's no reason to be scared of the government taking guns from people? It's a catch-22 in gun debates.

You're absolutely correct that it would be a PR nightmare. But in the scenario described, that the people as a whole had approved an Amendment, I'd feel comfortable postulating that the PR nightmare would be on the other side. If we're at the point where we're repealing the 2nd amendment people are going to see the National Guard and Police as heroes of the national will. Those resisting will, on the whole, be seen as criminals being arrested or mad dogs being put down.

Not that I think it's ever going to happen. And I agree that the 2nd Amendment allows for private ownership of guns. I'm just enormously opposed to argument from emotion - which is what the above seems to be - rather than argument from procedure and data.

Not unlike my position on marijuana. It's internally inconsistent to have marijuana illegal and have beer and whiskey legal. Inconsistency in policy bugs the fuck out of me.

While, I'm ranting - forgive me - I really resent how polarized this issue is. I don't actually give a fuck about ownership of guns but it becomes impossible to discuss it without the other side assuming one is an extremist on the other side. It's a Gresham's law of discussion. There's got to be a reasonable middle, but the whack jobs on both sides prevent the vast middle from even coming together to discuss it.

I said the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. You say that it's the opposite, that the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. I think you might not have gotten my point.

I don't think your point was very well taken - the Constitution does say what I said it did, and it doesn't say what you said (apparently facetiously) it did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk. A repeal of the 2nd amendment - along with the attendant laws about seizure and such - would bring law enforcement and potentially the National Guard into the process. Posse commitatus prevents the full time military from getting involved.

It's a difficult hypothetical to talk about, because repealing the Second Amendment would mean that a super-majority of state legislatures and/or Americans wanted it, and therefore a super-majority would not fight.

A slightly more reasonable hypothetical might be where the Supreme Court simply announces (asChronos facetiously suggested) that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, that there is no right of the people to keep and bear arms, and tries to impose the kind of restrictions suggested in the OP. That would not be a walk, because there would not be a super-majority in its favor.

There are various figures on defensive gun uses in the US ranging from 400,000 to 3 million per year. Suppose we take the lower figure - does the US have the will, or the resources, to prosecute 400,000 people a year for using an illegal gun to defend themselves?

shunpiker asks who is going to pay for the armory, and storage, and treatment, and administration of the whole program. That is a perfectly valid question, which is why I asked above for figures on how effective it would be. Who tracks if I am showing up for my regular therapy sessions? If a psychologist decides I am not sane enough to own a gun, do I have due process rights to appeal, or to confront witnesses against me? Am I presumed innocent? What are my privacy rights to this diagnosis? Do I have the right to an attorney, and if I cannot afford one, will one be provided for me? Do I have the right to remain silent in the therapy sessions? Etc., etc.

Well, I've heard this response, too. But doesn't that imply there's no reason to be scared of the government taking guns from people? It's a catch-22 in gun debates.

I don't think they need to be scared that the government will take their guns, no, because I don't see that as a realistic scenario. But there are a lot of people on the pro-gun side who lived through what they saw as a slippery slope of increasing gun control headed towards (or in some local cases at) outright bans of whole categories of guns...or all guns.

Quote:

You're absolutely correct that it would be a PR nightmare. But in the scenario described, that the people as a whole had approved an Amendment, I'd feel comfortable postulating that the PR nightmare would be on the other side. If we're at the point where we're repealing the 2nd amendment people are going to see the National Guard and Police as heroes of the national will. Those resisting will, on the whole, be seen as criminals being arrested or mad dogs being put down.

Even if we posit that the US has changed so much that the 2nd could be vacated by a new amendment and then very strict national gun control regulations or outright bans could be put in without the majority of Americans having an issue with that and in fact going along, I don't think that federal troops or police killing a family over their guns is going to be bad PR on the pro-gun side. I can't see Americans so changing that they would think of a family with kids being 'mad dogs being put down', regardless of what they did. Hell, I doubt if this happened in Europe that they would view it that way, even if they agreed that the family absolutely shouldn't have guns and were completely in the wrong.

Quote:

Not unlike my position on marijuana. It's internally inconsistent to have marijuana illegal and have beer and whiskey legal. Inconsistency in policy bugs the fuck out of me.

I completely agree, and it bugs me too.

Quote:

There are various figures on defensive gun uses in the US ranging from 400,000 to 3 million per year. Suppose we take the lower figure - does the US have the will, or the resources, to prosecute 400,000 people a year for using an illegal gun to defend themselves?

That would be almost half again the number of prisoners we currently have, and we are already straining resources at the local levels to fund and adequately provide that level of detention centers and prisons. It's hard to say what the legal results would be, but it would certainly add quite a few prisoners to our system if you were going to really enforce the bans once all the legislative hurdles were crossed.

Quote:

While, I'm ranting - forgive me - I really resent how polarized this issue is. I don't actually give a fuck about ownership of guns but it becomes impossible to discuss it without the other side assuming one is an extremist on the other side. It's a Gresham's law of discussion. There's got to be a reasonable middle, but the whack jobs on both sides prevent the vast middle from even coming together to discuss it.

Yeah, I again totally agree. I've been accused in multiple of these threads of being rabidly pro-gun because I disagree with things like what's in this OP. Myself, I see room for compromise, but sadly both sides are so polarized and there is such a small level of trust (read: non-existent) along with demonization of the opposing side that I don't see a viable way to compromise. Instead, depending on which way the pendulum is moving one side or the other is able to do what they want and beat up the other side until it swings the other way.

A slightly more reasonable hypothetical might be where the Supreme Court simply announces (asChronos facetiously suggested) that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, that there is no right of the people to keep and bear arms, and tries to impose the kind of restrictions suggested in the OP. That would not be a walk, because there would not be a super-majority in its favor.

Hell, I support the 2nd Amendment, don't own a gun - I've fired two and have the first brass from each right here on my desk - and believe that moderate regulation for the protection of all should be achievable and I'd back rebellion over that. That's the end of the United States as a functioning unit.

However ... as a gun advocate I agree 100% with your "There's got to be a reasonable middle, but the whack jobs on both sides prevent the vast middle from even coming together to discuss it."

Training, registration, limits on types of weapons ... perfectly sensible and in no way impedes our right to own a gun ... THEN let the local jurisdictions decide further regulations, my experiences with guns in this 1,000 sq miles of forest is different from someone living in Orange County, CA ...

We all want to know if outlawing handguns within Chicago city limits works or not ... I say let Chicago try if they want ...

And the last time there was an armed insurrection against We The People's government, the overwhelming response was to snicker and send them bags of dicks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by watchwolf49

We all want to know if outlawing handguns within Chicago city limits works or not ... I say let Chicago try if they want ...

The bulk of handguns used in Chicago crimes were bought literally next door in Indiana, where sales restrictions are as close to non-existent as it gets. It would be a shock if anything else were to be the case.

OK, since it needs to be spelled out explicitly: The Constitution really does say that well-regulated militias are essential, but gun-grabbers like to pretend that that clause doesn't exist, and because so many of them pretend that, this wouldn't work, never mind that it's perfectly consistent with what the Constitution actually says.

OK, since it needs to be spelled out explicitly: The Constitution really does say that well-regulated militias are essential, but gun-grabbers like to pretend that that clause doesn't exist, and because so many of them pretend that, this wouldn't work, never mind that it's perfectly consistent with what the Constitution actually says.

I think you mean that pro-gun types ' like to pretend that that clause doesn't exist, and because so many of them pretend that', yes? Not getting into whether you are right or not, but as written it doesn't really make much sense.

Unfortunately this thread is about gun control. If you would like to talk about abortion you can certainly start a separate thread.

Maybe next post you can add something productive to this discussion.

I think MEBuckner made a valid point. Your proposal is essentially that your position be enacted into law. Lots of people would like to see the same principle applied to things they believe in. MEBuckner pointed out how the same principle you're using on gun control would look if it was applied to the issue of abortions.

Likewise, the Constitution really does say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And gun grabbers like to pretend that clause doesn't exist.

Now that we have established that, we need to concern ourselves with proposals that address both without invalidating either. The proposal of the OP seems to assume that only the first clause is operative, which I think we agree is not the case.

So we need proposals that both make a well-regulated militia possible, and do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The OP is good with the first, but falls down on the second. Given that we agree that the pro-gun side is wrong to deny the militia clause, and the anti-gun side is wrong to deny the RtKaBA clause, what proposals can we come up with?

Likewise, the Constitution really does say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And gun grabbers like to pretend that clause doesn't exist.

Absolutely wrong. It's been patiently explained to you over and over. The context given by the other half of that single sentence, and the broader background of the Convention's discussions, show it to be limited to establishing a well-regulated militia, in lieu of a standing army. Outside that context, the Constitution says nothing whatever about arms.

You're being presumptuous. I don't even own a gun. I have no stake in this whatsoever. But I know plenty of people that aren't giving up their guns unless you pry them from their cold, dead hands. SWAT style raids against the uncooperative is going to be a bloody, bloody day. Don't fool yourself.

I know those sort of people too. I know SWAT guys too. Did you know there's a good bit of overlap between those two groups?

In other words, what makes you think the SWAT teams will be on the side of the gun-grabbers?

The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".

Likely to receive strong resistance from people who are concerned about government. Particularly government confiscation of firearms.

Does not solve the problem of how to get 300 million firearms collected, categorized and stored in these armories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD

At these armories, members of the public could register for a club. For the sake of argument, let's call these clubs "militias".

See previous comments on "government".

I was going to comment on the rest, but it's generally more of the same theme.

Also doesn't address the issue of using guns for home defense. I don't want to drive to the armory every time I think I'm going to get robbed.

The fundamental problem of gun control is that the country can't reach a consensus on what level of "control" is appropriate. Not that we don't understand the mechanism for securing objects in a vault and having authorized people sign them out.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now